It was strict Holy Office practice to keep detailed records of all
its proceedings from the first summons to the final sentencing. This was
intended to discourage the inclination to ask leading questions which
would suggest to the accused how they should reply. A permanent member of
every court of inquisition was the Notary, who took down in writing every
question and every answer, including the exclamations of pain emitted by
the victims of torture. Each official took a solemn vow of secrecy,
held interrogations in strict privacy, and carefully guarded the records
of trial proceedings. There were several reasons for this. First,
witnesses had to be protected from possible retaliation by the family
and friends of the accused. Second, once a defendant named his
accomplices, the Holy Office might have to move swiftly to bring them
into custody. If word leaked out to them before they could be
apprehended, the system would not be very effective. Third, the reputation
of the accused had to be protected. It was often reiterated that
inquisitors should act cautiously when making an arrest.

An inquisitor of Genoa wrote:

"because the mere fact of incarceration for the crime of heresy
brings notable infamy to the person, great prudence must be exercised
in the jailing of suspects. Thus it will be necessary to study carefully
the nature of the evidence, the quality of the witnesses, and the
condition of the accused. Let not our reverence be hasty in proceeding
to make an arrest because the mere capture, or even the rumor of it,
causes serious harm."

If, after the presentation of evidence through the prosecution
witnesses, and the completion of the interrogation of the accused,
the suspect had not cleared himself nor confessed to the charges,
he was allowed to prepare his defense. The suspect received a
notarized copy of the entire trial conducted up to that point,
with the charges against him in the vernacular, so that he might
more easily understand them. He was allowed a previously determined
period of time to study the evidence against him, and to prepare a
series of questions intended to counter the testimony of his accusers
He could also call friendly witnesses to testify in his behalf.

If the accused failed to take advantage of his right to legal defense,
the testimony was considered accepted by him, and he threw himself on
the mercy of the court. But by no means was the possibility for a
defense to be denied when the suspect requested it, even if a confession
had been obtained. Despite such provisions, it would have been difficult
for anyone unpracticed in the law to create and present an effective
defense. The inquisition recognized this. When the accused declared
that he lacked experience in such matters and required the services of
a lawyer, his wishes were granted. The suspect was allowed to suggest
the names of three lawyers, one of whom was assigned by the court to
serve him. Legal aid was not reserved for the wealthy. If the
accused did not have sufficient funds to pay legal fees, the court
paid the lawyer. However, the lawyer-client relationship was a
curious one when compared to today's practice. If a lawyer became
convinced that his client was indeed guilty and that the client would
not be persuaded to abandon his error, the attorney was obliged to
discontinue the defense. Lawyers who continued to defend the "obviously
guilty" often were subsequently held as suspects themselves. If the
lawyer was not convinced of his client's guilt, then he could aid in
the suspect's defense by presenting extenuating circumstances (i.e.,
drunkenness, anger, insanity, etc.). He could also seek postponements,
delays in court proceedings, while attempting to shift the focus of the
court to other witnesses who may have perjured themselves with
inconsistent testimonies. Lawyers often prepared apologies for
their clients and argued against interrogations involving torture.
Attorneys losing cases would also plea for mild sentences for their
clients. A defendant could know the evidence against him, but not
necessarily the names of his accusers. At the beginning of his defense
proceedings, the accused was required to name any people who he
suspected to be testifying against him out of malice. If he was right,
the inquisitor was obliged to investigate the motives and credibilities
of those witnesses. After examination of such testimonies, if it was
found that the depositions were false, these witnesses could be held
for perjury. All of this was not taken lightly by the inquisitors.
Records show that many of the "guilty" had previously presented false
witness.

Interrogation with torture usually was prescribed in two general
situations. First, where the evidence clearly indicated guilt which the
suspect had denied or was incapable of disproving, and second, when it
was deemed that a confession had not been full and sincere, or when it
was felt that all of the accomplices had not been named. Those who were
spared from torture were pregnant women, or women who had given birth
within a forty day period, the elderly, children under fourteen and
the physically impaired. Torture was rigidly controlled and restrictions
were enforced in Roman practice. The judge could not proceed to
interrogation under torture unless the evidence was compelling and
the defense had presented its case. Nor did the inquisitor alone decide
whether torture was justified. He had to seek the opinion of an advisory
council consisting of theologians and lawyers. If torture was to be used,
the court had to follow the instructions for torture, issued by the Supreme
Tribunal of Rome. Deviations from accepted procedure were not tolerated
by Rome (however, many variations of torture did occur under the
provincial tribunals). A curious side note: When the defendant
sustained torture without changing his testimony or confessing, the
evidence, in many cases was considered purged and absolution was given.
As one might guess, the inquisitors attempted to protect themselves
from this eventuality by recommending a careful scrutiny of all the
particulars in the case, the nature of the evidence, the quality of
witnesses, and the duration of torture and the force with which it
had been administered. When and if a confessional was obtained,
sentences were ordinarily reviewed in Rome before they were pronounced.
Convicted offenders, both lay and clerical, might be sentenced to
monastic confinement. This confinement was generally of two types:
First was the more formal confinement in a cell. The second permitted
circulation about the grounds of monastery or convent with the suspect
relegated to solitary penance. House arrest, or the restriction of
movement to a geographical area ranged from the size of one's own
house to his village or even a city (i. e., Rome). The elderly, or
those with large families were usually sentenced to house arrest.
Fulfillment of the terms of house arrest was assured by adequate
monetary security (bonds). More severe penalties took the form of
galley sentences, and the most severe was capital punishment. A death
sentence handed down by the inquisition meant burning at the stake.
However, only a small percentage of cases concluded with capital
punishment. The most frequently prescribed sentences were public
humiliation in the form of abjuration and salutary punishment which
was prescribed for three types of offenders: 1) the obstinate and
unrepentant; 2) those offenders who "relapse", and 3) those who had
been convicted of attempting to overturn the cardinal doctrines of
the Church (i.e., the Virgin birth, the full divinity of Christ).

The final act in the inquisitional process was the auto da fe,
a public ceremony where, after sentencing, penitent heretics abjured
and were reconciled to the church, and the obstinate and relapsed
offenders were sent to their fate. An interesting closing note:
Many of the people sentenced to burning at the stake were first
hanged or beheaded. The few who were burned alive at the stake
were offered sacks of gunpowder, which, when placed around their heads,
resulted in a quicker death.